[EDITED] Don't like Annulments: What is your desired Goal?

[revert_jen]

3# Great idea. However, people do and will continue to call their administrative decrees of freedom to marry as an “annulment” until the cows come home, call them what you want.

Well, that is true if there is no other name for them than “Decree of lack of form.” It’s a bit long to put in an average sentence. If you are just trying to convey to someone that you were once married but everything’s kosher (as it were) with the Church, what are you supposed to say? Half the Catholics I know (and pretty much all of the non-Catholics I know) don’t know what a decree of lack of form is, so I can either say I had an annulment, and be a bit inaccurate, or I can spend 15 minutes talking about canon law. If I’m talking to a potential date or a potential convert, it might be worth it, but otherwise, not.

Give us a name, or don’t complain that we use the wrong one.

–Jen

 

[JRKH]

I’ve been lurking on the sideline here but these are a few things I would love to see considered.

Great to hear from you Corki…

1. reinforce the role of the defender of the vow. On the other thread one poster asserted that his/her tribunal did not have a defender of the vow. If that is true, it’s scandalous.

As SerraSemper points out the person is actually called the defender of the bond, but we know what you mean. You are right - if that is not true then it is indeed scandalous. However the person’s “assertion” (which did not see) would need additional investigation.

That said - I would be interested in how one would “reinforce the role” of this position.

1. if the petitioner is the person who initiated the divorce, a much higher burden of proof should exist vs. the abandoned spouse. This is consistent with the Catechism’s treatment of culpability in a divorce situation.

While I can agree that the “burden of proof” should lay with the petitioner in those cases alleging some defect relating to Canon 1095, I recoil from phrases like “much higher” as being imprecise.

If the petitioner abandoned the marriage and has entered a relationship with someone else, the current arrangement should be dealt with *before *dealing with the validity of the subject marriage.

In general I must disagree with this one - in any formal sense. Of course the precise nature of the new relationship can effect this…my mind is reeling with the various permutations of what the “current relationship” might be and how long it has existed etc…
It seems to me that requiring the “current relationship” to be dealt with first would only introduce another complication and disruption which may not be necessary (if the petition is granted) or can be dealt with afterwards (if the petition is denied).

1. completely separate the administrative cases. There are so many administratively invalid marriages - prior bond, Catholic party married outside the Church, etc. Calling them by the same terminology just confuses the faithful.

I wholeheartedly agree with this one.
While Semper and jen have made good points about what they might be “commonly called”, regardless of any administrative nomenclature, I think that there should be a clear separation of these things in how they are counted and reported in the statistics - and a change in terminology might help that. As it now stands, these numbers have a tendency to artificially inflate and mislead.

1. and the most controversial, IMO, preach and enforce canon 1152/3

If the innocent spouse has severed conjugal living voluntarily, the spouse is to introduce a cause for separation within six months to the competent ecclesiastical authority which, after having investigated all the circumstances, is to consider carefully whether the innocent spouse can be moved to forgive the fault and not to prolong the separation permanently.

I don’t know of any cases, where this has been followed.

To be completely honest, I don’t know how you would enforce this fairly and in all cases…To many possible permutations…Take the person who is married in the Church but then abandons the faith for many years…is divorced and remarried during that time and then - after many years - is drawn by the Holy Spirit back to the Church.
Do you deny accepting their petition based on a technical “6 month” window?

Also contrary to some opinions, I think we need more lawyers involved once a petition is initiated. There is a dire shortage of competent trained canon lawyers and it is important that everyone involved, especially reluctant respondents, be assured that their rights are being protected and that someone is looking out for their best interests.

Fair enough…another “vocation” that needs to be fostered. More well trained canon lawyers.
Hopefully this will not drive up the costs too much…

Thanks for you (name removed by moderator)ut…

Peace
James

 

[Corki]

Great to hear from you Corki…

As SerraSemper points out the person is actually called the defender of the bond, but we know what you mean. You are right - if that is not true then it is indeed scandalous. However the person’s “assertion” (which did not see) would need additional investigation.

Yeah, sorry - it was late.

That said - I would be interested in how one would “reinforce the role” of this position.

I think that there is a tendency, in some tribunals to give everyone the benefit of the doubt for “pastoral” reasons. I don’t pretend to know about the inner workings of the tribunals but of all the cases of friends and family members, I have never heard that there was any critical appraisal of the documents or witnesses. Especially, with marriages that lasted decades, the defense should be vigorous. Evidence should be questioned and witnesses should be credible.

While I can agree that the “burden of proof” should lay with the petitioner in those cases alleging some defect relating to Canon 1095, I recoil from phrases like “much higher” as being imprecise.

Yes, and if anyone really does an overhaul of the system, they must be more precise. What I would like to see more of is a “normal” case where the person the code of canon law calls the innocent spouse is the one who is presumed to be in the right even if the other spouse is the petitioner. The responder needn’t be on the defensive as the default. If John Smith leaves his wife to move in with his secretary and the wife files with the tribunal, it should be different than if John files in order to be able to marry the secretary.

This goes back to something said in the other thread about motivation. In the scenario above, John’s motivation is quite possibly not to investigate whether the marriage was valid but to get a “free pass” for a second marriage while the wife’s motivation is more likely to be “what went wrong” or more precisely “what was wrong”.

In general I must disagree with this one - in any formal sense. Of course the precise nature of the new relationship can effect this…my mind is reeling with the various permutations of what the “current relationship” might be and how long it has existed etc…

True. See my example above. I think the tribunal should be extra sceptical about anyone who is seeking a decree of nullity** in order to **marry someone new before the ink in even dry on thier divorce. It is different with a couple that is just trying, after some period of rebellion, to make things right with the Church. If there are not children involved from the new relationship a petitioner should be told to separate from the new paramour, let some time pass to cool off emotionally and then to look at the original bond on its own merits. There is a perception that, since the petitioner is unlikey to return to his or her spouse it is better to let the new relationship be legitimized rather than drive the petitioner away from the Church altogether. (I am not saying that the tribunal members think this way but how it is perceived) The tribunal process should never have the appearace of being motivated by expediency.

It seems to me that requiring the “current relationship” to be dealt with first would only introduce another complication and disruption which may not be necessary (if the petition is granted) or can be dealt with afterwards (if the petition is denied).

From a pastoral and expediency approach, you are right. But isn’t that just assuming that the petition will be granted rather than assuming that the marriage bond is valid, which is supposed to be the “default”? We see all the time that the new couple continues to date, gets engaged, even has kids while waiting for thier “annullment” to come through. If the assumption was in favor of the bond, they shouldn’t be advancing their relationship and potentially making everything much worse if the bond is upheld.

While Semper and jen have made good points about what they might be “commonly called”, regardless of any administrative nomenclature, I think that there should be a clear separation of these things in how they are counted and reported in the statistics - and a change in terminology might help that. As it now stands, these numbers have a tendency to artificially inflate and mislead.

It’s an unfortuanate reality that there are many, many marriages that **cannot **be found valid and shouldn’t even be considered in the same statistics with actual investigations of validity. Maybe it’s not so much what they are called but who oversees the process. With everything falling under the marriage tribunal, they just look like “fast track” annullments.

To be completely honest, I don’t know how you would enforce this fairly and in all cases…To many possible permutations…Take the person who is married in the Church but then abandons the faith for many years…is divorced and remarried during that time and then - after many years - is drawn by the Holy Spirit back to the Church.
Do you deny accepting their petition based on a technical “6 month” window?

This part of canon law, like the need for better pre-cana, is not about the tribunal process itself but about trying to make sure fewer marriages get to that point. If there was a expectation that you don’t get even a civil divorce without a review by someone in the Church, there might be more marriages saved. That “someone” should be charged with doing whatever is possible to get the couple to, as the code says “resume conjugal life”. [and don’t anyone chime in about abuse, etc. That’s already covered in the code. ] This is the way it used to be. The “default” was to work through the better and worse and the Church was there to help you do that. Now, most couples divorce first and then go to the Church for “healing” and help to move on with their lives.

Fair enough…another “vocation” that needs to be fostered. More well trained canon lawyers.
Hopefully this will not drive up the costs too much…

Well, cost is always an issue. But that’s how we got into this “no fault” mess with divorce in the US in the first place. Cheaper and faster is not usually better.

 

[Corki]

2# Perhaps you were not thinking of the case where the wife is raped by the husband and files for divorce?

Those cases are dealt with differently under canon law. From the Church’s perspective, the wife in such a case is the innocent party even if she is the one who physically leaves the home or initiates the paperwork. The husband would be the one who initiates the disruption of the conjugal bond and the one in my dream world scenario that should have the higher burden.

Do you understand what is required for an “affirmative” vote by a judge in a case of marriage nullity?

That’s what we are discussing here and in the thread that preceded this one. There are different standards being used by different tribunals.

Do you understand that in many cases, there is NO innocent party (other than the bond of marriage)?

But there is always a petitioner and a respondent. If the petitioner is an innocent spouse (as defined in canon law), there is one presumption; if the petitioner is not an innocent spouse, there is a higher burden of proof. (in my revised world) The decision isn’t about “which one” is innocent but whether the petitioner is an innocent spouse or not. And this could and should be determined at the parish advocate level (our diocese calls them Case Sponsors) before the tribunal is involved. The tribuanal should not favor one decision over another based on the precense of an innocent spouse but if the petitioner is not an innocent spouse, the possible motivation behind the request for investigation should be considered.

 

[JRKH]

Yeah, sorry - it was late.

I think that there is a tendency, in some tribunals to give everyone the benefit of the doubt for “pastoral” reasons.

Well - so long as everyone is given the benefit of the doubt, then justice should not be disrupted…For it seem to me that “giving everyone the benefit of the doubt” is the same thing as assuming that everyone is being as truthful as they can be unless there is reason to doubt them.
This seems to be a logical and correct position to take…especially as regards the petitioner.

I don’t pretend to know about the inner workings of the tribunals but of all the cases of friends and family members, I have never heard that there was any critical appraisal of the documents or witnesses. Especially, with marriages that lasted decades, the defense should be vigorous. Evidence should be questioned and witnesses should be credible.

Well - like you I have no real working knowledge of how things proceed in “inner workings” the tribunal. When I petitioned, I simply answered the questions, supplied the additional documents they asked for and waited…Trusting God.
I CAN however speak a bit to the thing about marriages that lasted decades…as mine did (…don’t ask me how…). When I applied it had been some 35 years since was dating my ex. Trying to come up with “witnesses” that knew us all through that time is tough…The only ones really were family members.
Understand - I don’t disagree with your comment - I’m just suggesting a difficulty…re: witnesses

Yes, and if anyone really does an overhaul of the system, they must be more precise. What I would like to see more of is a “normal” case where the person the code of canon law calls the innocent spouse is the one who is presumed to be in the right even if the other spouse is the petitioner. The responder needn’t be on the defensive as the default. If John Smith leaves his wife to move in with his secretary and the wife files with the tribunal, it should be different than if John files in order to be able to marry the secretary.

Sounds right.

This goes back to something said in the other thread about motivation. In the scenario above, John’s motivation is quite possibly not to investigate whether the marriage was valid but to get a “free pass” for a second marriage while the wife’s motivation is more likely to be “what went wrong” or more precisely “what was wrong”.

Agreed…with reservations…I still have trouble getting my head around the idea of someone looking for a “free pass”…for a second marriage or whatever. I suppose it could happen…certainly given some of the things I’ve read and know about the state of Catechesis among Catholics.
Maybe it’s just me and I am naive, but I still feel that, if the person is serious bout their faith, then they want an honest appraisal. If they are not serious then they are much less likely to bother witha process that could take years to settle…
Like I say - I agree - but with reservations…

True. See my example above. I think the tribunal should be extra skeptical about anyone who is seeking a decree of nullity** in order to **marry someone new before the ink in even dry on their divorce. It is different with a couple that is just trying, after some period of rebellion, to make things right with the Church. If there are not children involved from the new relationship a petitioner should be told to separate from the new paramour, let some time pass to cool off emotionally and then to look at the original bond on its own merits. There is a perception that, since the petitioner is unlikely to return to his or her spouse it is better to let the new relationship be legitimized rather than drive the petitioner away from the Church altogether. (I am not saying that the tribunal members think this way but how it is perceived) The tribunal process should never have the appearance of being motivated by expediency.

In response to the last statement…I am reminded of a line from the movie “A Man for All Seasons”. Thomas More" is before the high court on charges of treason and is being questioned on his silence regarding the king’s new marriage and title as head of the church of England. The following exchange takes place…
Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!
Sir Thomas More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is “Qui tacet consentire”: the maxim of the law is “Silence gives consent”. If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.
Cromwell: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?
**Sir Thomas More: **The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.
So too I say to all here. Regardless of what the “appearance” might be, the Tribunal must construe according to the law…

From a pastoral and expediency approach, you are right. But isn’t that just assuming that the petition will be granted rather than assuming that the marriage bond is valid, which is supposed to be the “default”?

Not at all. It’s assuming certain current realities and determining that the best course is to resolve the root cause issue before trying to deal with consequent issues. To me this approach makes more sense.

We see all the time that the new couple continues to date, gets engaged, even has kids while waiting for their “annulment” to come through. If the assumption was in favor of the bond, they shouldn’t be advancing their relationship and potentially making everything much worse if the bond is upheld.

Well I must not be part of the “we” you are referring to.
But in the type of case you refer to above…I agree that there are problems and that the one who continues to date, get engaged etc…is not acting properly and they need to know that such behavior will not help their cause.

It’s an unfortuanate reality that there are many, many marriages that **cannot **be found valid and shouldn’t even be considered in the same statistics with actual investigations of validity. Maybe it’s not so much what they are called but who oversees the process. With everything falling under the marriage tribunal, they just look like “fast track” annulments.

Agree It would be nice to see these things somehow clearly separated from the more controversial types of decrees.

This part of canon law, like the need for better pre-cana, is not about the tribunal process itself but about trying to make sure fewer marriages get to that point. If there was a expectation that you don’t get even a civil divorce without a review by someone in the Church, there might be more marriages saved. That “someone” should be charged with doing whatever is possible to get the couple to, as the code says “resume conjugal life”. [and don’t anyone chime in about abuse, etc. That’s already covered in the code. ] This is the way it used to be. The “default” was to work through the better and worse and the Church was there to help you do that. Now, most couples divorce first and then go to the Church for “healing” and help to move on with their lives.

Agree…

Peace
James

 

[Pug]

I think preaching canon 1152 might lead to more marriage breakups than there are already. I don’t think most people know that if their spouse commits adultery that they are legally allowed to decide never to resume relations. If they did, more might choose that. Instead most folks will figure they still have to have relations with their wayward spouse, so they will do so if they can at all force themselves to do so, and the marriage might heal over time.

 

[JimG]

It seems to me that the very existence of huge numbers of Catholic annulments cannot help but have a bad effect on the thinking of couples preparing for marriage. It has the effect of weakening their perception of marital permanence.

The divine law says that marriage is permanent and indissoluble. That’s a fact, and it’s a fact that couples entering marriage should know. But now they also know that there are thousands of annulments granted each year. And they can’t help but think, ‘How permanent is it really? How binding can it be?’

My life seems to have spanned both the periods of permanence and the current period of impermanence. Growing up, I would hear the adults talk about such things, and the impression I got from hearing them was this: When a Catholic gets married, they can never get unmarried. They are married until one of them dies. If things get really bad, they can get a civil divorce, and live apart, but they can never ever get married again, because they are already married.

And to back up that impression, one also knew, then, that annulments were almost never granted. One also knew of some parishioner who was in fact civilly divorced but could never remarry as long as his or her spouse remained alive.

So when couples thought of marrying, they did so knowing that it was permanent, knowing that the only thing that could break this marriage was death.

Do they even know that now?

Permanence until death is not a hard concept to understand. It may be hard to accept, but it’s a command given by Jesus.

So the only suggestion I have is for marriage preparation. This text from St. Paul should be on every page of the marriage prep materials:

“To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.” (1 Corinth. 7:10-11).

Protestant marriage and civil marriage are also, of course, in just as much trouble as Catholic marriage. No fault divorce laws make every marriage vow less binding than a mortgage, breakable at will, like abortion on demand. Restoration of the institution is sorely needed. Marriage is the basis of family and family is the foundation of society. As marriage crumbles, so does society. It’s not just about couples.

 

[JRKH]

Jim,
Great Post.

I agree 100% on the perceptions today and the need for beefed up marriage prep. in this regard. In fact it should start with the teaching of the faith from little on - but most especially during the teen years.

Peace
James

 

[SMHW]

It seems to me that the very existence of huge numbers of Catholic annulments cannot help but have a bad effect on the thinking of couples preparing for marriage. It has the effect of weakening their perception of marital permanence.

The divine law says that marriage is permanent and indissoluble. That’s a fact, and it’s a fact that couples entering marriage should know. But now they also know that there are thousands of annulments granted each year. And they can’t help but think, ‘How permanent is it really? How binding can it be?’

This seems to be another vote for separating the true nullity cases from the lack of form cases.

The fact of the matter is I’m not sure I personally know of any cases where a couple had a Catholic wedding and then a party to that marriage sought and obtained a ruling of nullity. The only people I have known who have actually obtained rulings of nullity were not Catholic at the time of the original marriage and so obviously would not have gone through any Catholic marriage prep. Probably most of the Catholics I know who have claimed to have received “annulments” were never actually in marriages that enjoyed the presumption of validity. (I’ve also known a few who had previous non-sacramental marriages dissolved.)

 

[Corki]

I think preaching canon 1152 might lead to more marriage breakups than there are already. I don’t think most people know that if their spouse commits adultery that they are legally allowed to decide never to resume relations. If they did, more might choose that. Instead most folks will figure they still have to have relations with their wayward spouse, so they will do so if they can at all force themselves to do so, and the marriage might heal over time.

Hmmm I guess that speaks a lot to different people having different experiences. My own experience is that a lot of people think adultery is grounds for annullment, which it is not, and are too quick to move for divorce rather than to seek reconcilliation. Thanks for the other view.

 

[JimG]

This seems to be another vote for separating the true nullity cases from the lack of form cases.

The fact of the matter is I’m not sure I personally know of any cases where a couple had a Catholic wedding and then a party to that marriage sought and obtained a ruling of nullity. The only people I have known who have actually obtained rulings of nullity were not Catholic at the time of the original marriage and so obviously would not have gone through any Catholic marriage prep. Probably most of the Catholics I know who have claimed to have received “annulments” were never actually in marriages that enjoyed the presumption of validity. (I’ve also known a few who had previous non-sacramental marriages dissolved.)

I agree with this, but I’m not sure how it could be implemented. Lack of form cases involve Catholics who failed to follow the marriage law of the Church.

Still, I would hope that all marriages would reflect a commitment to permanence, not just Catholic marriages. It would be a good start for Protestants to also begin preaching St. Paul’s warning in a serious way.

 

[Corki]

It seems to me that the very existence of huge numbers of Catholic annulments cannot help but have a bad effect on the thinking of couples preparing for marriage. It has the effect of weakening their perception of marital permanence.

The divine law says that marriage is permanent and indissoluble. That’s a fact, and it’s a fact that couples entering marriage should know. But now they also know that there are thousands of annulments granted each year. And they can’t help but think, ‘How permanent is it really? How binding can it be?’

My life seems to have spanned both the periods of permanence and the current period of impermanence. Growing up, I would hear the adults talk about such things, and the impression I got from hearing them was this: When a Catholic gets married, they can never get unmarried. They are married until one of them dies. If things get really bad, they can get a civil divorce, and live apart, but they can never ever get married again, because they are already married.

And to back up that impression, one also knew, then, that annulments were almost never granted. One also knew of some parishioner who was in fact civilly divorced but could never remarry as long as his or her spouse remained alive.

So when couples thought of marrying, they did so knowing that it was permanent, knowing that the only thing that could break this marriage was death.

Do they even know that now?

Permanence until death is not a hard concept to understand. It may be hard to accept, but it’s a command given by Jesus.

So the only suggestion I have is for marriage preparation. This text from St. Paul should be on every page of the marriage prep materials:

“To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.” (1 Corinth. 7:10-11).

Protestant marriage and civil marriage are also, of course, in just as much trouble as Catholic marriage. No fault divorce laws make every marriage vow less binding than a mortgage, breakable at will, like abortion on demand. Restoration of the institution is sorely needed. Marriage is the basis of family and family is the foundation of society. As marriage crumbles, so does society. It’s not just about couples.

The question is, can we unring this bell? With the secular view of marriage we are looking at a very sad state of mind. For the first time in our history, more kids than not are living with only one parent or with a reconstituted family (divorced or remarried). Some kids have not even one example in thier lives of a permanent marriage. It is incredibly sad.

 

[JRKH]

Just want to thank everyone for the great (name removed by moderator)ut.

Although the thread didn’t really stick to the intent of the OP, that was as much my fault as anyone else…

I have to think that for all of us the desired goal would be to reduce the number of broken homes…Fewer broken homes mean many many benefits - not just fewer D.O.N’s (Decree of Nullity) issued.

Simply reducing the number of D.O.N’s by tightening requirements and interpretations will do nothing to reduce the number of divorces.

So - whatever the problems with the current system - especially as it pertains to cl 1095 - our main focus to be to support Catholic marriages and to assist in whatever way we can to build strong ones that will last.

Peace
James

 

[JimG]

The question is, can we unring this bell? With the secular view of marriage we are looking at a very sad state of mind. For the first time in our history, more kids than not are living with only one parent or with a reconstituted family (divorced or remarried). Some kids have not even one example in thier lives of a permanent marriage. It is incredibly sad.

That’s certainly a good question. On the one hand, it sometimes seems that an understanding of marriage has fallen so far as to be unable of restoration. Still, there’s no inherent reason why the next generation of married couples must necessarily adopt a lax view of marital commitment just because their elders have. In fact, looking over the desolation it has caused, they may have more reason to seek the restoration of marriage.

 

[revert_jen]

The question is, can we unring this bell? With the secular view of marriage we are looking at a very sad state of mind. For the first time in our history, more kids than not are living with only one parent or with a reconstituted family (divorced or remarried). Some kids have not even one example in thier lives of a permanent marriage. It is incredibly sad.

Whether we can unring it or not, isn’t it our duty to try? All things are possible with God.

This is, BTW, the problem with no-fault divorce. It’s not that it makes it easier to divorce, it’s that it creates a mindset in marriage from day 1 that “well, if things go too wrong, we can always divorce.” This means that instead of spending energies adapting and working with our spouse, we are peeking out from behind our eyes and trying to measure whether it’s bad enough yet for divorce.

–Jen

 

[veilofveronica]

I guess that I was fortunate.

My marriage preparation was extremely rigourous. My (now husband, then fiance) and I approached a wonderful Jesuit priest in February 2011, wanting to get married in October of that same year. After prayer, contemplation, Pre-Cana inventory and two meetings with us, he determined that he would prefer that we wait and we set a tentative date of May 12, 2012.

We went through Marriage Preparation ( a weekend, but very intensive and worthwhile stuff) and had to meet with the same priest several times before we had a final “yes”. There were some personal issues, yes, that had to be ironed out that I won’t get into, but a big part was simply that Father felt that we needed more time to get to know eachother as we’d had a quick engagement- even though we’d known eachother as friends for several years , he felt we needed more time as a couple. My fiance also decided to enter the RCIA program in September 2011 and completed it in April 2012. It all worked out for the best. (This was of totally his own decision).

We had intense counseling, discernment, and preparation and were truly “ready” for marriage before our marriage date (which did take place May 12). We were very fortunate to have the priest we did prepare us. I think that if more couples had this experience, there would be less that were rushing into marriage for the wrong reasons without careful preparation. We were also older than some couples (I was 33 almost 34, he is 39), but were still asked to do this intense prepwork.

Part of the issue is that marriage needs to be stressed as a life long vocation that is not for everyone. It’s assumed in larger society today that marriage is just something most people will do, and that you can easily get out of it and repeat the process if it doesn’t work the first time. It should be stressed to couples that marriage is a vocation and a calling, is not everyone’s calling, and there are other paths to take for those that do not have this calling from the Lord.

There also are people that come to the Church to get married because their parents want them to, or they want to get married there because they want a “church wedding” but then balk at all that comes with that. It should be stressed that this is a Sacrament and not just a “wedding”.

I think that, at least, to my experience, the process is getting better at this.

 

[AthenaC]

That’s certainly a good question. On the one hand, it sometimes seems that **an understanding of marriage has fallen **so far as to be unable of restoration. Still, there’s no inherent reason why the next generation of married couples must necessarily adopt a lax view of marital commitment just because their elders have. In fact, looking over the desolation it has caused, they may have more reason to seek the restoration of marriage.

This is, BTW, the problem with no-fault divorce. It’s not that it makes it easier to divorce, it’s that it creates a mindset in marriage from day 1 that “well, if things go too wrong, we can always divorce.” This means that instead of spending energies adapting and working with our spouse, we are peeking out from behind our eyes and trying to measure whether it’s bad enough yet for divorce.

I feel like I keep :banghead: in pointing this out but it frustrates me when I see everyone point the finger at no-fault divorce with minimal / no additional examination of this assumption. Although, admittedly, were it not for no-fault divorce I probably wouldn’t be alive today to sit here and argue with you all, extolling the virtues of no-fault divorce, so that’s probably coloring my opinion a bit. What can I say? I like being alive.

Anyway, no one gets married with the expectation of anything less than forever. No one gets married without the intellectual understanding that there will be hard times. If you can find one couple that gets married with a different set of expectations and the idea that “oh well if things go too wrong we can always divorce,” I will happily stand corrected and yield my entire argument. No one lacks the intellectual understanding of what forever entails or that marriage is forever.

What IS lacking is: 1) an understanding of unhealthy vs. unhealthy relationship dynamics and 2) the skills required to create a healthy relationship (i.e. be the spouse you want to be married to).

1. What is a healthy relationship? How do you recognize one in your life? How do you nurture it? (Here’s a hint: see #2 below.) What is an unhealthy relationship? How do you recognize one in your life? How do you walk away? Far too many people have no way to answer any of these questions. Many people abandon relationships that are healthy (or could be healthy) because they have no concept of #2 (below), or because they confuse them with or turn them into unhealthy relationships. Not just with spouses either - relationships with friends and family members are casualties here, too; are these also the result of no-fault divorce? On the other hand, I see far too many people cough including me 10 years ago cough who are determined to stick it out forever because marriage is sacred (and it is!) with no concept of UNhealthy relationships. These people tear themselves apart emotionally trying to forgive abuse; sometimes these people end their marriages as an act of self-preservation, and sometimes these people never leave and end up a tortured, twisted excuse for a human being. Is no-fault divorce responsible for these, too?
2. Ever seen the TLC series “Shalom in the Home” with Rabbi Schmuley? What I love about his show is after he’s talked with the family conceptually about what needs to change, he helps them script their interactions with each other. Yes, it’s forced and awkward at first, but that’s how it is when you are practicing a new skill set. Before long (in most families), after working through some examples of how to treat each other better, the good habits flow much more naturally. And by the end of the show, we have shalom in the home. Just like magic!

You can club people over the head with canon law and the definition of a sacramental marriage all you want, but unless the above two things change, you will NEVER get anywhere. Relationship literacy needs to be an area of educational focus just as much as language literacy.

 

[AthenaC]

Just to add to my previous post really quickly - everything I mentioned has to happen before marriage prep even begins. So while I’m not going to say no to “better” marriage prep (whatever that means), I don’t think that’s what the issue is and I don’t think that’s the answer. Unless by “better” marriage prep you mean weeding out the people that don’t have a good grasp of #1 and #2 above.

 

[jmcrae]

Just to add to my previous post really quickly - everything I mentioned has to happen before marriage prep even begins. So while I’m not going to say no to “better” marriage prep (whatever that means), I don’t think that’s what the issue is and I don’t think that’s the answer. Unless by “better” marriage prep you mean weeding out the people that don’t have a good grasp of #1 and #2 above.

I agree that one part of the solution is to teach our young people to recognize good relationships, and to walk away from bad ones, regardless of the short-term emotional pain. They also need to understand that love cannot conquer all, that love will not change the other person into what he or she will never even want to become - that what you see is what you get, 'til death ye do part, for better and for worse. That kissing frogs is a waste of time; they don’t change into princes - go after the princes to begin with, if you like princes, and leave the poor frogs alone.

 

[Pug]

Anyway, no one gets married with the expectation of anything less than forever. No one gets married without the intellectual understanding that there will be hard times. If you can find one couple that gets married with a different set of expectations and the idea that “oh well if things go too wrong we can always divorce,”

You must mean something other than how I interpret this. I certainly got married with the idea that if he was a bad enough abuser, I could divorce. My mother specifically asked me about it before I married. Furthermore, at the time I did not distinguish between divorce with no ability to remarry, and divorce with the ability to remarry. To me the word “divorce” automatically meant you could remarry. Of course, I also thought the Church taught that you could never *ever *divorce, but I secretly figured that they really didn’t mean it in every case.

Surely more people besides myself have had concerns about the future of their marriage if something like abuse or complete abandonment came up? How does a person *not *wonder if their marriage will last, given all the divorce statistics shoved in their faces during marriage preparation? (I know, everyone is different. But to me it seems unimaginable not to wonder if you will end up like all those people in the statistics. People are people. People are weak. )